See page in:
1859
1860
1861
1866
1869
1872

Compare with:
1860
1861
1866
1869
1872

we now see everywhere around us, and which 1859 1860
OMIT 1861 1866 1869 1872

seems to me 1859 1860
is 1861 1866
under what is called the Natural System, is 1869 1872

make more strictly correct, 1859
make truer, 1860 1861 1866 1869
confirm, 1872

1 blocks not present in 1859 1860 1861; present in 1866 1869 1872
We can see why throughout nature the same general end is gained by an almost infinite diversity of means; for every peculiarity when once acquired is long inherited, and structures already diversified in many ways have to be adapted for the same general purpose.

woodpecker, should have been created to 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869
a woodpecker, should 1872

have been created with 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869
possess 1872

thrush should have been created to 1859 1860 1861 1866
thrush-like bird should have been created to 1869
thrush-like bird should 1872

been created with 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869
the 1872

forms; so that each large group tends to become still larger, and at the same time more divergent in character. But as all groups cannot thus
go on
succeed in
increasing in size, for the world would not hold them, the more dominant groups beat the less dominant. This tendency in the large groups to go on increasing in size and diverging in character, together with the
almost
almost
inevitable contingency of much extinction, explains the arrangement of all the forms of
life
life,
in groups subordinate to groups, all within a few great classes, which we now see everywhere around us, and which has prevailed throughout all time. This grand fact of the grouping of all organic beings seems to me utterly inexplicable on the theory of creation.
As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden
modifica- tions;
modification;
it can act only by
very
very
short and slow steps.
Hence,
Hence
the canon of "Natura non facit saltum," which every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to make more strictly correct, is on this theory
simply
simply
intelligible. We
can,
can
in short,
plainly
see why nature is prodigal in variety, though niggard in innovation. But why this should be a law of nature if each species
had
has
been
in dependently
independently
created, no man can explain.
Many other facts are, as it seems to me, explicable on this theory. How strange it is that a bird, under the form of woodpecker, should have been created to prey on insects on the ground; that upland
geese
geese,
which
rarely
never
or
never
rarely
swim, should have been created with webbed feet; that a thrush should have been created to dive and feed on sub-aquatic insects; and that a petrel should have been created with
the habits
habits
and structure fitting it for the life of an
auk!
auk
or grebe!
or grebe!
and so
on
on
in endless other cases. But on the view of each